In 1973, British Columbia became the first province in Canada to outlaw corporal punishment in public schools. At first glance, this appears to mark progress. But beneath the surface, our discipline systems remain shaped by a legal and cultural tolerance for punitive authority—and the echoes of that harm still reverberate today.
Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada—often called the “spanking law”—continues to justify the use of physical force by teachers and guardians, so long as it is deemed “reasonable under the circumstances.” Although the Supreme Court of Canada attempted to narrow its interpretation in 2004, the ruling left critical gaps. Educators may not strike students, but they may still use force to restrain or remove them. And in the absence of strong provincial legislation, especially in Alberta and Manitoba, this justification continues to function as a protective shield for adult authority rather than a safeguard for children’s rights.
What is less often discussed is how this legal grey zone interacts with broader disciplinary trends—particularly collective punishment.
The United Nations has defined corporal punishment to include not just physical harm, but also humiliation, degradation, and the use of fear as a form of control. That includes threats, ridicule, and psychological manipulation. Collective punishment operates on exactly this terrain. It punishes groups of children not for what they have done, but for what others did near them. It relies on shame rather than justice, silence rather than communication (UNICEF, An Everyday Lesson: END Violence in Schools).
This is not merely a pedagogical issue—it is a human rights issue.
When teachers remove recess for an entire class because of one student’s outburst, when administrators assign arbitrary tasks or deliver public lectures to shame students into obedience, they are enacting punishments that violate the rights of children to be treated as individuals. These practices are not relics of the past; they are widespread, normalised, and rarely questioned.
In many ways, collective punishment is the modern face of corporal punishment.
It may not leave bruises, but it leaves psychological traces. It teaches children that accountability is collective when it is punitive, but individual when support is needed. It encourages conformity at the expense of dignity. And it disproportionately harms disabled, racialised, and neurodivergent students—those whose needs already mark them as inconvenient.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission made this plain. In its final report, it described corporal punishment as “a relic of a discredited past that has no place in Canadian schools or homes.” Its Calls to Action explicitly call for the repeal of Section 43. The Commission tied this demand to the long legacy of violence and assimilation embedded in Canada’s education system, especially toward Indigenous children.
Section 43 enables a culture in which punishment is not rooted in individual accountability, but in the preservation of adult control. It constructs a legal foundation for punitive discipline by permitting “reasonable force,” a concept that lacks both clarity and enforceable limits. While collective punishment is not a form of physical force per se, it thrives in systems where power is exercised arbitrarily (Locher, Are We “There” Yet?).
The logic is parallel: children are not treated as subjects with rights, but as objects of correction. Section 43 grants adults wide discretion to determine when and how discipline should be applied, just as collective punishment allows educators to issue blanket consequences without investigation or nuance.
Furthermore, collective punishment is often accompanied by emotional or psychological coercion—public shaming, threats of escalation, forced apologies, and social isolation. According to UNICEF, such acts fall under the broader definition of corporal punishment, which includes punishments that “belittle, humiliate, denigrate, scapegoat, threaten, scare or ridicule the child.” Collective punishment enacts these harms at scale.
To repeal Section 43 would be to begin dismantling the ideological infrastructure that permits group-based discipline to masquerade as educational strategy. It would affirm that children are entitled to justice, not just obedience.
-
What did the Truth and Reconciliation Commission say about punishment?
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was unequivocal. In its final report, it described corporal punishment as “a relic of a discredited past that has no place in Canadian schools or homes.” The Commission tied the practice to the historical violence of residential…
-
How is collective punishment connected to Section 43?
Section 43 enables collective punishment by authorising adult control over children without accountability. Repeal is needed to uphold children’s rights.
-
What is Section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code?
Section 43 permits “reasonable force” on children. It remains law in Canada and continues to justify harmful disciplinary practices in schools.
Legal disclaimer
This site is created by parents and advocates, not lawyers. The content provided here is for informational and educational purposes only. It reflects our interpretations of public policy, legislation, and lived experience. It should not be taken as legal advice. If you need legal guidance regarding your specific situation, we recommend consulting a qualified lawyer or legal clinic in your jurisdiction.
